Bureau of Local Government Finance Opinion

February 26, 1998 BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE OPINION 1st Indorsement Respectfully referred to the City of Manila for appropriate action the herein letter dated November 27, 1997 of Ms. Loly N. Uy, Comptroller, Suy Sing Commercial Corporation (SSCC) requesting opinion on whether or not that City can validly assess and collect the taxes levied on the sale of goods and services under Section 21(A) of Ordinance No. 7794, as amended, in addition to those under the provisions of Sections 16 and 21(D) of the said Ordinance. It is represented that SSCC is engaged in the business of selling goods (essential items) in that City and has been paying religiously the taxes as provided for in Sections 16 and 21(d) of said Ordinance, as reflected in the attached xerox copies of official receipts. However, in addition to the taxes imposed under said Sections 16 and 21(d), SSCC has been assessed under Section 21(a) and paid under protest as shown in Official Receipt No. 161410. In this connection, the Department of Finance, on previous similar cases has expressed the view that "if a business is already taxed under sub-sections (a) to (g) of Section 143 of the LGC, such business should no longer be taxed under sub-section (h), for reason that such imposition will constitute double taxation as the same kind of tax is being imposed twice on the same business." The foregoing views are in reiteration of the previous action on a similar query addressed to Mr. Alfredo T. Libunao, Office Manager of R.R. Baltazar & Co., Inc., copy enclosed. Accordingly, and considering the representations made by SSCC, this Bureau expresses the view that the imposition of local taxes under Section 21 (a), and Section 16 and 21 (d) of the subject ordinance is tantamount to double taxation. Hence, this Bureau has written the Comptroller of the company to confer with that Office for the purpose of securing the refund or tax credits of the erroneous payments made under Section 2(a) of said Ordinance. Finally, it is noted that despite the numerous communications and the length of time that has elapsed, that Office still failed to comply with our directives that effort be exerted to advice the city officials concerned about the mounting complaints of the taxpayers of the city against the imposition in question which should not be enforced/collected by that office. Advice of action taken within ten (10) days from receipt hereof is desired. DAHSaT (SGD.) LORINDA M. CARLOS Executive Director